Calif. city's police to wear head-mounted cameras

[Bob Hubbard]

That DC case I referenced that we discussed some time back indicated they were mandatory. I've seen a few other references, but am unable to locate specific requirements so I may be in error.

Best system dash camwise would be an always on 360' view, same for personal wear. It'll help convict the bad ones, and exonerate the good ones, both civi and leo. A remote monitor system would also help I think, how many cops have died because they couldn't get to their radio to call for help?

 

[Omar B]

:lurk:The entire camera/big brother thing is not good in the long run. More and more I'm out and about doing errands & everyday stuff & I keep coming upon these silly signs that all say ... (Smile, your on camera!) I've even seen these signs entering public parks. That's my issue with the entire camera topic. If we give governments too much control what happens is what we have now. The governments no longer serve the people. The people serve the governments.:lurk:

Kinda reminds me of the Song "1000 eyes" by Death, or "Electric Eye" by Judas Priest. Either way, I've never had a problem with cameras or big brother invading anything of mine. I like to keep it legal ya know, every once in a while I like a toke of weed but really I have not since the summer so I can't really count that.

My only issue with the thing is the ability to turn it on and off. If there's a camera it should be ON, that's it, no editing on the fly by turning it on after you've finished beating down Rodney King. A joke, relax guys, but really, that on/off button and the fact that it's worn over an ear cutting it's range off to a small area makes it kinda hampered in my eyes.

 

[jks9199]

This is being discussed (not surprisingly) on a cop forum; one person made a similar comment to mine above about how a cop's word isn't enough anymore if it's not backed up by video. (Note, for example, Omar's assumption that the ability to turn it off means cops are going to use it to cover up things.)

My comment there has relevance here:

I think it's quite possible that the loss of confidence and trust in a cop's word over the last 10 to 20 years is going to be one of (if not the) most costly changes in society that we'll face.

And if they're not taught right -- the next generation of cops is going to buy into the idea that their personal integrity is not enough, too, because cops are selected from society.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It'd be nice if public trust in law enforcement was restored, but cases like the DC snowball one isn't going to help. But, we're moving off topic of the cameras I think.

 

[Omar B]

This is being discussed (not surprisingly) on a cop forum; one person made a similar comment to mine above about how a cop's word isn't enough anymore if it's not backed up by video. (Note, for example, Omar's assumption that the ability to turn it off means cops are going to use it to cover up things.)

My comment there has relevance here:

I think it's quite possible that the loss of confidence and trust in a cop's word over the last 10 to 20 years is going to be one of (if not the) most costly changes in society that we'll face.

And if they're not taught right -- the next generation of cops is going to buy into the idea that their personal integrity is not enough, too, because cops are selected from society.

Now now, let's note JK, that I'm not saying cops will or won't use the on/off switch to cover things up (bad Rodney King Joke, I know). The thing is, most of us forget our cameras or just forget to set them up right. I was in a car accident not a month ago, I took pictures but in the middle of the night under stress I forgot to turn on the flash so the pictures look not so great. Under stress people forget things. My thing is, let the camera just run, keep it on a 4 hour loop. When something happens the camera can be collected/docked on a base and it's memory cleared and it would be within that window where whatever needed to be saved would still be on there rather than overwritten.

 

[The Last Legionary]

Give them the cameras, make them always on
do we really need youtube video of a cop taking a dump?
You know that'll happen.
And that hottie in the Jag? The little flashing red light will tell her she's on Candid Camera and better put the girls away.
Then again, some gals enjoy the attention, y'all might get a few more 'shows' if you were also producers.

Sell the footage to CBS, they can make a new reality show and pay for the gear. LOL

 

[teekin]

Hmmmm, who owns the "rights" to the images captured on the tape? Who can sell the images or stills of the images? If the tax payers pay for the eqipments does that make all images public property? or do the images fall under police property as evidence, or is it the property of the person who's image it is of? If the cops break into someone's house, where there is the expectation of privacy, can the images taken inside be released?
This could be a smart lawyers ticket to a vintage E Type.
lori

 

[MJS]

SAN JOSE, Calif. – San Jose police are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public.
The test using 18 patrol officers comes as citizens' groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.
Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift.
The cameras are the size of a Bluetooth cell phone earpieces and attach by a headband above the ear.
San Jose is the first major American city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International. Taser is paying for the experiment, but the price could be high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers.
Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That's $4 million department-wide each year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_california_police_cameras

I think it's a great idea, though I would prefer a system that does not turn off because it can still be abused. The form factor is interesting. Why over the ear? It surly does not give a good feild of view. I think it would be way better to have it on a pair of glasses (like in the first Mission Impossible movie) to give a closer approximation of what the officer is seeing rather than an image visible to the left or right missing half the picture.

I like the idea as well, and of course, just like the dash mounted cameras, there should be a feature that prevents access by anyone other than a supervisor. It'd be interesting to know, due to the location of it, how well it'll record. As for the glasses...that sounds like a nice idea too, but they'd have to be adaptable for those that already wear prescription glasses.

 

[MJS]

Question,


Do you think having to pay another 4 million in taxes each year is a good idea? Anyways not sure where your at but they already have cameras all over the place watching every single move we make so having more is not the best idea. At least in my book. Also, thought this was Martialtalk you know, martial arts related forum.:barf:

1) The money that the state has to pay out will probably never end. Then again, maybe if certain things were cut back on...

2) As far as this discussion goes, MT is a MA discussion forum, but we offer other areas for those that want a break from the MA discussion. There are other forums that offer things like this as well. Of course, if you dont like it, your options are: a) leave the forum, b) just avoid this and other non MA related areas, c) request for your access to these areas to be removed.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I think it's quite possible that the loss of confidence and trust in a cop's word over the last 10 to 20 years is going to be one of (if not the) most costly changes in society that we'll face.

I agree with you. It's just that for a part, cops have brought this lack of trust onto themselves. I am betting that a lot of complaints against the police are unwarranted. However there are enough examples of abuse to not blindly take a cop's word for granted in all cases.

These cameras should make it much easier to close cases at a faster rate. No more he said she said, no more unwarranted lawsuits. this should save heaps of money and allow for speedier trials.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

As a police sergeant in a major metropolitian area, I can see both good and bad things.

The good:

1) No longer a he said / she said issue. Officers can be either exonarated or held accountable for their actions.

2) It will make those officers that might be inclined to take negative actions think twice before they do so.

The bad:

1) Video has only a small field of view. There is a lot of information that is missed by cameras, whether it be things outside the visual angle or on the camera but missed due to obstructions.

2) People looking at the video and using that as the whole of the evidence. Cameras lack context. Even if it were on 24/7, there are alot of things that go into a police officer's decisions that you can't see because they are mental processes.

3) Regardless of how upstanding a police officer is, the fact of the matter is that cameras may curtail enforcement action. Because of the two issues I've listed above, the correct actions (within the context of the officer's moral intent), officers will still be penalized for their actions. Whether it happens to them, or they learn about it through the grapevine, the effect will still be the same.

Now, each jurisdiction needs to weigh the idea of any type of camera system on its own merits, based on the needs of the citizens and the department. In my agency, we are field testing lapel type cameras to determine their effectiveness. I don't know whether they will be a good thing or a bad thing. Dashcams in my city have been more good then harm, as I understand it in terms of internal affairs investigations, but you never know what will happen with this new technology.

And for those that think the cameras should be on continuously, I will tell you that it is impractical. Besides storage and removal issues, the fact of the matter is that officers discuss things in terms of investigations that the public need not know about, ie. speculations, hunches, ideas, tactical plans, etc. Not only will this give information to the public that would potentially be unsafe for officers (tactical planning in future operations), but could cloud issues in court.

Imagine a jury hearing an officer say, "I just know this guy hid the gun around here," to his partner, and lo and behold, he finds a gun. The defense attorney will turn around and say that the officer planted it because he was determined to find his client at fault. Remember Mark Furman's use of the word ni**er was supposedly evidence to his lack of credibility in the O.J. Simpson case.

And besides, who wants to view a cop sitting on the crapper....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I dunno....I smell a new CBS reality show....they can call it, CRAPS!.

 

[Big Don]

I dunno....I smell a new CBS reality show....they can call it, CRAPS!.

Bad food bad food
whatcha gonna poo
whatcha gonna poo when they come for you

 

[Carol]

And besides, who wants to view a cop sitting on the crapper....

And who wants to be a cop, especially a female LEO, knowing that her...um...private moments are going to be on display for her generally-majority-male colleagues.

The concern I have is LEO's playing to the camera (as you mention 5-0 with the "gun around here somewhere" point), and also to the nature of cameras in general.

JKS posits what could happen if a cop is only believed if he's on tape.

Its not a big stretch to think a similar thing could happen with a civilian. Will ordinary citizens face a higher risk of prosecution if they do not have video to prove their whereabouts?

Will their be a greater class divide within the justice system because people in a higher socioeconomic standing can afford a "personal security cam" for their eyeglasses (and its accompanying storage system and interface with a datacom network to provide unalterable timestamps), but people that aren't in such a standing cannot afford such a rig?